Diversifying and Regulating Unit Production



  • I find it kind of odd that you are able to produce three battleships at a minor complex with no naval base. I’ve thought in the past that your builds should be restricted, or even allowed based on your infrastructure (ICs, Air/Naval Bases). My proposal is this: certain combinations of facilities will allow production of certain units.

    Minor IC - Land units, fighter, transport, destroyer.
    Minor IC w/ Naval Base - add cruiser, sub.
    Minor IC w/ Air Base - add tac bomber.

    Major IC - Land units, fighter, tac bomber, transport, destroyer, sub, cruiser.
    Major IC w/ Naval Base - Add Battleship/Carrier
    Major IC w/ Air Base - Add Bomber

    Naval Base (Alone) - Transport, Destroyer (Max 1/Round)
    Air Base (Alone) - Fighter (Max 1/Round)

    How do you think these would balance out? Maybe also allow Infantry to be recruited in any originally owned territory (Up to the territory’s production value)? I may be able to play a game with these rules in the next few weeks, although they wouldn’t be against people I have much trouble beating anyways. 
    Anyway, thanks for reading.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I like your concept of placements!  But…

    Maybe also allow Infantry to be recruited in any originally owned territory (Up to the territory’s production value)?

    That’s a REALLY bad idea.  Russia would be damn near impossible to beat as Japan.  Especially early in the game.

    Naval Base (Alone) - Transport, Destroyer (Max 1/Round)
    Air Base (Alone) - Fighter (Max 1/Round)

    And whilst I like this…  I’m not so sure either…  Suddenly america is putting 2 infantry, 1 fighter, and 1 destroyer a turn at the Phillipines  Or Greenland.  Germany is building units in Africa, simply because they got an Airbase there…

    The concept alone of the Major/Minor restricts is good though I think.  But it really restricts some countries.  Like Anzac,  they can now NEVER build a battleship or cruiser, or bomber.  And Italy can’t build bombers where it’s Airbase is located.

    AMERICA is also wholly incapable of building BOMBERS, or Capital ships for the first 3 to 4 turns of the game.

    France will never be able to build capital ships either, (Not that they can now).  The same can be said for Russia.

    Best suited for a free-for-all, Empire-builders pure house rules/risk/killemall kind of game IMO.



  • I always thought of IC being not a direct correlation to its size, but a combination of two things. The first being a territory’s ability to even handle industrial production, the base value. The second, being the logistical calculations on the convoy routes and land routes, essentially the unseen factors in IPC systems.

    I do like the idea of an IC and a naval base/airbase combos to produce, Strategics, BB and CV. It would represent the efforts by a power to turn it into an effective strategic zone for heavy ordanance and resource extraction.

    Not to keen on the “recruitment” rule however.


  • TripleA '12

    I like this concept too.  🙂 And I would that add that in the case of new Naval Bases, they ought to be placed on the coastline that touches the sea zone in which you wish to build your naval units. I mean, if your territory was adjacent to two or more sea zones then you would have to choose which coastline to place your newly built Naval Base. And from that point on all new ships could only be launched from your new NB into that sea zone.

    Just to add a bit more depth.

    But maybe this is taking things too far.



  • Gargantua, those are nice points, but they can be fixed with some quick rules.
    1. Make Infantry able to be recruited up to their territories’ production value minus one. This prevents Russia from constructing infantry in the far east.
    2. No builds from islands (Except UK/Scotland, Japan, Australia, like in the normal game).

    I think ANZAC not building capital ships is a good thing, and makes some sense. I’m not aware of any battleships or carriers build in Australia during the war. Also, the Americans could upgrade one of their factories before entering the war in order to build capital ships/bombers. As far as I know, America wasn’t really preparing to go to war with capital ships when they were attacked. Again, if they want to get a head start, they can upgrade the factories prematurely.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Alright some more questions.

    Does raising infantry count against a factories production total?  IE you have a factory in Egypt, can I now build 3 infantry there, + another for the value of the territory?

    What about Germany?  Can Germany build 10 tanks, and 5 infantry now, in Berlin if they have the money?

    Can a territory be SBR’d to prevent people from building infantry there?

    UK can now also build units in West India, and WALK them over to India herself.  Germany is able is raise units in Norway too.

    American might not have been building capital ships, but they HAD them,  and why should they have to upgrade a factory to build bombers?  does that make sense?



  • Does raising infantry count against a factories production total?  IE you have a factory in Egypt, can I now build 3 infantry there, + another for the value of the territory?

    My logic is that you don’t really need heavy industry to equip soldiers with guns and put them through basic training, but I don’t know how this would affect balance. What do you think?

    What about Germany?  Can Germany build 10 tanks, and 5 infantry now, in Berlin if they have the money?

    Again, not sure. Also, it’d only be four, because it’s minus 1.

    Can a territory be SBR’d to prevent people from building infantry there?

    If you can come up with a way to do that, then sure.

    UK can now also build units in West India, and WALK them over to India herself.  Germany is able is raise units in Norway too.

    I see those as good things, but I don’t know how it would balance.

    American might not have been building capital ships, but they HAD them,  and why should they have to upgrade a factory to build bombers?  does that make sense?

    America has a battleship and a carrier at the start, which I think is appropriate. Perhaps we could allow the US to build capital ships/bombers at game start, but at increased cost. Alternatively, we could give them a Major IC in eastern US, so they could build them before the war starts, if they so please.



  • I don’t think this is a good idea, but you could target the free infantry production with a version of my Economic Bombing.



  • I wouldn’t restrict the building of units based on a nation’s historical choices, where rules are applicable, based the alternate scenarios which are bound to arise in the game.



  • if you do this……just have air bases build air units, naval bases build navy units, and ICs build land units…


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 35
  • 9
  • 6
  • 39
  • 13
  • 5
  • 13
  • 42
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

69
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts