AARHE: Unit Purchase and Mobilization (Phase 1)


  • Well  the rule says the Soviets like everybody else have to spend 3 ipc on navy… so is that a waste? or should we allow them to spend the 6 IPC as 3 armor/ 3 air? or just leave it alone?


  • germany built many subs in w. Europe so maybe in order for a nation to get the 3 free ipcs for a naval purchase we can loosen the restriction to have the naval unit be put anywhere, not just at the capital. if we do this, then Russia can spend ipcs on a naval unit for the Caucasus to get the 3 free ipcs. a sub or transport doesn’t help them, and not realistic. would Russia buy a DD for 10 - 3 free ipcs = 7 ipcs? i don’t know. I do want Russia to build a naval unit now and then for realism.

    Destroyers
    United States = 349
    United Kingdom = 240
    Japan = 63
    Soviet Union = 25
    Germany = 17
    Italy = 6

    Soviets built more DDs than the Germans and Italians combined!


  • Well Italy started the war with 59 destroyers. I guess then perhaps we should leave the Soviets the same.


  • @theduke:

    Is there an example of a difference between the 2 you can give? I’m having a hard time making a distinction.

    I don’t know. But I feel there is a difference. You guy have VCP for victory condition and then the infantry placement limit is not exactly just on VCP but with all this distance from capital rule and exceptions for US and UK?

    @Imperious:

    Well Italy started the war with 59 destroyers. I guess then perhaps we should leave the Soviets the same.

    Actually thats probably different. What you have already at the beginning of and what you built during the war.

    Cost of IC
    By the way I proposed the opposite :roll: actually.

    VCP is for infantry placement. IC is for non-infantry placement
    –> Cost of IC should not include VCP in the equation?

    With the “4 times IPC” limit we have bigger and smaller ICs.
    –> Bigger IC should cost more not less?

    So instead of Cost = 15 - 3IPC - 2VCP I thought more like Cost = 5 + 3*IPC

    Alternative we could model IC differently. Not dependent on the territory itself.
    Each IC can produce 20 IPCs. More than 1 IC per territory allowed.

    Destruction of IC
    @Imperious:

    All ICs that were present at the start of the game are permanent (i.e. ICs that were never purchased can never be destroyed). Purchased ICs can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.

    Nothing is indestructible by policy or physics. USSR is happy to reduce their own cities to ground on retreat.
    –> IC can be selected for destruction in purchasing units phase?

    And should retreating or destroyed defending forces be able to put down ICs instantly at will?


  • So instead of Cost = 15 - 3IPC - 2VCP I thought more like Cost = 5 + 3*IPC

    This ‘15 - 3IPC - 2VCP’ was never the cost of an IC that I remember. Where’d you get this?


  • OK, we are going to attack this “historical purchasing” problem for a completely different angle.

    What should each nation purchase in a certain turn to to give the feel of a historical purchase, forgetting about their starting IPC value just for the moment?

    I’ll start things off with an example for Russia:

    Russia:
    5 inf for Russia *2 each = 10 ipcs
    ~2 inf for outside Russia *3 each = 6
    2 arm for Russia = 8 (T34 NA)
    1 fighter = 8 (10 - 2 free)
    1 rtl = 3 (4 - 1 free)
    = 35, which is 11 too high, even with all the free ipcs. The problem is that fighters aren’t cheap enough for Russia to buy them yet. I think we might need to make the incentive for 1 air unit per turn even better.


  • @theduke:

    This ‘15 - 3IPC - 2VCP’ was never the cost of an IC that I remember. Where’d you get this?

    Oh that was in the thread “review of first draft”…
    @Imperious:

    The cost of purchasing new ICs now depends on the territory in which the IC will be placed….For example, an IC in India, FIC or Kwangtung now costs 15 - (3 IPCs)*(2 VCPs) = 9 IPCs.

    He didn’t post it in the other phase 1 main thread though.


  • Those are 2 different equations. I think I know where you got confused.

    costs 15 - (3 IPCs)*(2 VCPs) = 9 IPCs. (The * symbol means multiplication)

    This is an example for the correct equation 15 - (IPC value) * (VCP value) = (Cost of IC) applied to India.

    India is worth 3 IPCs and 2 VCPs so if you plug it into the equation you get:

    15 - (3 IPCs) * (2 VCPs) = 15 - 3*2 = 15 - 6 = 9

    The “3 IPCs” doesn’t mean “3 * IPCs” it means that what there are 3 of are IPCs. (like saying I have 3 apples doesn’t mean I have 3 * apples).

    Does this make sense?


  • The equation regarding the max. amount of damage a IC can sustain as i understand it is :

    Take territory value multiply by 3 and subtract all connected territories. The maximum damage in any case is limited to 30.

    The equation regarding the cost of IC is as duke explains in his post.


  • Oh I see.
    So what do you think of my arguments about VCP vs IC cost? and IPC vs. IC cost?

    @Imperious:

    The equation regarding the max. amount of damage a IC can sustain as i understand it is :
    Take territory value multiply by 3 and subtract all connected territories. The maximum damage in any case is limited to 30.

    Why mutliply by 3? In the case of many ICs we could get negative income?
    What do you think of my argument against “connected IPC’s”?


  • Geez tekkyy, you are really all about being technical with these equations!

    3*(IPC value) - (connect territories) = max number of IPCs able to be commerce raided

    Obviously, having a negative possible number of IPCs able to be raided is nonsensical. Once you get as low as 0 IPCs able to be raided you stop subtracting.

    The 3 factor is simply because that is the number that gives the best play balance. Using the factor 3 is just a consequence of how the game is laid out. If we assigned different IPC value distributions to all the territories we’d probably have to use a different number than 3.


  • No we won’t force them to negative income hehe.
    Just strange situations with this model.
    We should be discussing Commerce raid in the Income thread of course.
    My arguments are already posted over there.


  • @Imperious:

    The equation regarding the cost of IC is as duke explains in his post.

    So do you think its fine as it is?

    I think ICs on higher income territories represent “bigger” ICs and should cost MORE not less.


  • So do you want to ignore the greater amount of manpower that goes into building an IC at a heavily populated area vs. in a rural part of the world?


  • Then shouldn’t somehwat offset each other?
    Building a small amount of factories in a rural area vs. building a large amount of factories in populated area?

    And I think we should separate material resource and labour resource. IPC as material, VCP as population.
    Though VCP is not exactly population.


  • I think you’re overly simplifying the issue of cost while over complicating the issue of resources.

    If you found any info on IC costs could you post it? I’d be more than happy to look it over.


  • I don’t actually have any historic info on IC.
    But I haven’t seen any background info supporting IPC income reducing cost of IC neither :-P
    Like whether building 30 factories in India is in fact costly compared to building 100 factories in Germany.

    I think its proportional. 30 factories to India is just as much as 100 factories to Germany.

    I am not trying to overly simplify the issues of costs. I accept factors of population so I don’t mind VCP reducing the cost of an IC.


  • Realistically, no new ICs were built… at least not on the scale as represented by what can be done by an IC unit vs. no IC unit. So, I guess we’re not going to have any new ICs at all.


  • but if we can’t build ICs its like gameover when you lose your IC?

    how about we make ICs takes 2 turns to build?
    how about we can only build ICs on territories with an income of 3 or more?
    would that be more realistic?


  • how about we can only build ICs on territories with an income of 3 or more?
    would that be more realistic?

    how about if ICs cost more to build in territories with fewer IPCs and/or VCPs?

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 35
  • 1
  • 3
  • 6
  • 17
  • 9
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts