Should i play with or without factories ?

@nutbar:

I hate factories and my brother won’t let me play without them. Factories are overpriced and have extremely unfair rules. Can you give me ways to convince my brother to let me play without factories.

Playing without ICs is even more unfair for Japan and the UK since they will be limited to building 8 units.

Umm, no they aren’t, how do you reinforce all over the world, I don’t know why you should hate them. Also they’re called Industrial Complexes.

@strategic:

nutbar likes to play with no ipc unit per territory, and he plays with magical you-can-build-any-unit-in-any-quantity-as-long-as-you-own-the-territory-and-you-have-the-$-rule.

ps hes my main opponent/ aka brother

Little brother, right?

Let me get this straight. By his rules, there are no factories, you can build as much as you like in any territory you own, provided you can afford the units - a lot like Risk. Germany would benefit a lot in Europe but the Allies building in Asia and Africa is a gamebreaker. US gets Sinkiang, UK gets India. The US can get Norway and pump out units there unless Karelia is stacked.

On the surface it sounds fun just because it’s different but it’s sure to be unbalanced in some way or another. Maybe put up with him until he catches on that whoever gets the Allies is bound to win or vice versa.
@nutbar:

I hate factories and my brother won’t let me play without them. Factories are overpriced and have extremely unfair rules. Can you give me ways to convince my brother to let me play without factories.

Nutbar, how are factories overpriced? What would a fair price be? What is so unfair about their rules? Is it that a hypothetical factory on Madagascar could only produce one unit per turn? Is it because they discriminate against neutral territories? This is the first time I’ve heard those assertions of factories being a bad addition to the game and I don’t understand your argument. It’s much more than just your brother who will insist on playing with factories, your best bet is finding a like-minded opponent or someone who wants to try something different.

There’s only one way I can see factories being unfair and it’s if you remove the ability to buy new ones. Japan is automatically limited to 8 units meaning the Allies have an incredibly easy task of KGF. When I say unfair, I mean benefiting one side, the Axis, more than the Allies. In this case, the unfair addition of factories to aid Japan in Asia is great.

@nutbar:

IC’s cost 15 IPC’s. That is a totally unacceptable price. Realistically, a good price would be 5-10 ipcs. …. and the hypothetical theory that in a place you can only build the number of units the territory’s ipc is worth.

this seems strange… unless your only trying to build infantry with all your IPC’s.  Since Infantry are cheap enough, it prevents you to build all your IPC’s into infantry.  but if you were to mix in Tanks , planes, etc. and build with the intent of moving the units to where you need them, there is plenty of room to build in any area that already has a complex.  Basically you need to build with the possible future moves in mind.

the funny thing is most games i play USA & Japan Buy complexes, sometimes britain.  Usually, UK, USA, and japan can do alot with just the original complexes and transports

Now we’re getting somewhere. At 5-10 IPC’s with unlimited placement, they’re way too cheap. Think about how overpowering that is to nations with enormous far away production - Japan and US. If the USA can hold Norway long enough to get a factory rolling(or just hold Sinkiang) then they have no need for a navy and won’t need to invest income into transport protection. Their whole 40+ production can go in a territory just 3 spaces from Germany. Persia would be a great factory location for the UK because of how much easier it is to defend than India. This would again defeat the purpose of defenseless transports - making it expensive for the Allies to get units to the front. And on the Axis side, can you imagine Japan placing 50 IPC’s of units all on Yakut?

The current rules provide simple constraints on factories that prevent them from becoming too powerful and overused. I like how factories don’t move. Germany’s SE factory would be moved immediately to a more aggressive location in Eastern Europe then forward from there. Then how is Italy significant besides being worth six? Russia would move the Caucuses factory before capture which removes incentive for Germany to take it over West Russia in most games.

Lowering the price slightly, say from 15 down to 12, as done in AAR enhanced might be reasonable. The economics are supposed to be against the USSR building a factory. I’m not trying to dismiss this because it’s a fun argument, but economics are also against Russian navies and a whole host of other ideas but there aren’t suggestions to change those rules.

Yeah… I pretty much think that Industrial Complexes are good the way they are. If they were cheaper, they would be overpowered. 15 IPCs is a fair price. If they were cheaper, say 5 IPCs, Japan could build three factories on their mainland and pump out nine units on Russia’s tail per turn.

agreed… also This game is supposed to be a simulation of what you can do with what was available.  also the value and production limits are there to simulate the Time and resources involved in the war effort.  To make a drastic change of unlimited deployment are game breaking changes that will affect further game play.   besides, Ive played many games on the board… and every country has had there share of victory… one game Russia dominated germany, another game japan dominated the US, another Game UK Wiped out Japan, and once the US hammered both Axis into the ground.  Fantastic games…