Collect income phase…

@Flashman:

I’ve always been in favour of collect income at the start of a turn; nobody should attack a tt with the intention of holding it for only one round.
This rule also tends to mean that a typical turn has fewer, larger battles as the active player will attack in numbers intending to take and hold a tt rather than making a series of cash-grabs with just enough units to take the tts for a single round.

This is a more realistic depiction of WWII era strategy.

Some balancing ideas if this means too few units:

Apply the “boost” mentioned elsewhere in reverse (at the end of a turn); this also leaves an IPC “float” to pay off SBR damage etc.

Ideological warfare: Whenever Germany or USSR take a tt from each other the winner gets a free infantry in the tt to represent locals opposed to the ideology of their own system (Germany ended up with about a million Soviet citizens in their forces in Russia).

I’ve always been in favour of collect income at the start of a turn; nobody should attack a tt with the intention of holding it for only one round.

I agree with you this aspect of the game is historically inaccurate (and bias because of the IPC income phase at the end of the player’s turn).

Apply the “boost” mentioned elsewhere in reverse (at the end of a turn); this also leaves an IPC “float” to pay off SBR damage etc.

If I understand what you say, the real income phase is put at the beginning of the player’s turn while the “boost” is given at the end of the player’s turn.

It is a very very interesting idea. :-)
If it is done this way, the conquered and lost territories will no count in the income of a power.

And with the “boost” phase at the end, a just conquered territory will only give 1 IPC even if it has a greater value.

This phase need another better name.
Something like as National Pride Income (end) vs Industrial Production Income (start).

The only problem is about planing buying units. It will base upon an approximation (of what you will have at the start of your future turn) instead of the “money” you have actually in hand.

@Flashman:

Germany ended up with about a million Soviet citizens in their forces in Russia.

Is it true? 1 million? That much soldiers? Are you sure?

@Flashman:

Of course you could simply add the basic income and boost together if you need a similar level of overall income.

http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osttruppen

Thanks, I will read the sources.

I think that’s maybe the way to keep the same overall income.
Balancing lost of IPCs from one Income by the other type of Income.

But for USA (which don’t have much contested territories) it will be a major build-up of IPCs.
Maybe it must be .5 IPCs / territory. I don’t know.

@Flashman:

Depending on the sources. The actual combat troops may have been about half this, the rest served the Germans as rear-echelon personnel (Hiwis). You might also consider them making a “sweep” of occupied areas for slave labourers; but this is getting more political than many would care to see in a boardgame.
There may have been considerable asset-stripping of military facilities which the end-of-turn boost may represent.

Of course you could simply add the basic income and boost together if you need a similar level of overall income.

http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osttruppen

Very very interesting indeed:
Thanks for the sources.

From the moral point of view, the Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Cossacks, the Georgians, Armenians, and Turkomans, and the members of all the other non-Russian nations were not traitors. No matter under which government they were born and in which part of the world, they all fought against a government which was not their government and against a country which was not their country, but which had enslaved them. By contrast, the Russians of General Vlasov fought only against their government but not against their own nation; what is more, they fought for the liberation of their nation from the system which enslaved it. One could say of them that they were traitors to their government but not traitors to their nation, and in Soviet Russia the government and the nation are not the same, as in the West.

In my opinion there is one reason which explains everything: the general hatred of the Soviet system, a hatred greater than inborn patriotism and loyalty to one’s own government. Those who have not seen the limitless degradation of man in what was the Soviet hell cannot understand that a moment may come when a man out of sheer desperation will take up arms against the hateful system even at the side of an enemy. The responsibility for his mutiny falls on the system and not him. Here the notions of loyalty and treason lose their meaning. If, in the eyes of many people, Germans who fought against Hitler were not traitors, why should the Russians who fought against the Soviet system be traitors?

How little public opinion in the West understood the real state of affairs is perhaps best shown by the text of the leaflets, addressed to Soviet soldiers in German uniform, which were dropped by the Allied Air Forces in France in the summer of 1944. These leaflets called for the cessation of fighting and promised as a reward - speedy repatriation of prisoners to the USSR! The effect was of course, such that some of the Eastern troops fought desperately to the last man.(77) Thus, for example, an Armenian battalion perished completely in bitter fighting.(78) Soldiers of the Eastern formations were the unhappiest soldiers of the Second World War. Deprived of their fatherland, scorned by their protectors, regarded generally as traitors, although in their consciences they were not traitors, they fought often for an alien and hateful cause; the only reward which they eventually received for their pains was toil and death, mostly in a foreign land, or “repatriation” to the hell from which they had tried to escape.

@Flashman:

Of course you could simply add the basic income and boost together if you need a similar level of overall income.

Here is a different way to calculate it as a Conquest Bonus Income:
Give 1 IPC for each just conquered territory during the Combat Phase.
Give 1 additional IPC for each victory city captured during the Combat Phase.
And 1 IPC for each only foreign territory (as colored on the board) captured during preceding other turns.

Of course, I would keep Income Phase at the beginning of the turn and the collect Bonus Phase at the end, after NCM and placement of units.

No more double dipping, but a little compensation for Russia and Germany fighting back and forth.

Giving 1 IPC/each turn for captured foreign territory including “0” value may become an incentive to capture them.
And also reason to not let them go easily to the enemy.

There is more explanations on the other thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31978.msg1248476#msg1248476

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this Collect income phase… thread (much harder to find with google search).
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914