i think the fundamental problem with the design of the game is that economy (or income) is used as an incentive to take and hold territory when i don’t think that’s realistic. Example: Germany’s economy wasn’t cut to 25% of what is was in 1942 when the Allies had Germany surrounded, but in the game that’s what it would be (Germany starts at 40 and the territory of Germany is worth 10). I don’t think that economy is the right incentive to use for taking enemy territory. Maybe something like victory city points for every territory, obviously having some territories worth many more vcps than others but still having all territories worth at least 1.
I never said that income is the only incentive, just that it is an incentive. It would be ridiculous to say that it’s the only incentive, but you can’t deny that players will attempt an attack just to collect a couple extra IPCs and take a couple away from the opponent. Other incentives for attacking might include positioning units, trying to surprise your opponent with a trick maneuver, getting closer to attack an enemy capital, etc…
I’m getting the feeling that some people can be quick to put words in my mouth and criticize me for the words that they put there. Let’s all remain careful to criticize so as to not waste time with arguments where no one is of the opposite point of view and also to not discourage others to post new ideas.
I am saying that an unrealistically disproportionate large amount of IPCs are contained in territories away from the capital. Realistically, the capital of a nation should have a much higher proportion of the IPC total, and all other territories controlled by that nation should have a proportionally lower amount.
If this change is made, then the Allies economic advantage will last longer (specifically, that it will last until one of the Allied capitals is captured). This is an advantage to the Allies. Therefore, we should also propose another change that will be either an advantage to the Axis or a disadvantage to the Allies (some people see that as the same thing and others don’t… let’s not get into an argument over it).
Maybe we could restrict US and UK infantry purchases, which would be realistic too. How exactly we want to do that I’m leaving open to interpretation right now. Any other ideas?