I think the mass production rules need to be more restricted because we want to create an incentive for the players to follow a more historic purchasing strategy (i.e. how to get Russia to buy armor units, how to get each nation to buy at least 1 air unit and naval unit each turn).
Yeah what theduke said but actually what we are doing is not to create incentives for players to follow historic purchases (and historic outcomes) but to model characteristics of each nation.
By the way if anything is confusing this VCP thing is the one!
We need to separate VCP and IRC (infantry raising capacity) or something.
Its getting confusing to reference distance and VCP as we define infantry placement limits.
Yeah what theduke said but actually what we are doing is not to create incentives for players to follow historic purchases (and historic outcomes) but to model characteristics of each nation.
Is there an example of a difference between the 2 you can give? I’m having a hard time making a distinction.
By the way if anything is confusing this VCP thing is the one!
We need to separate VCP and IRC (infantry raising capacity) or something.
Its getting confusing to reference distance and VCP as we define infantry placement limits.
The VCPs happen to coincide perfectly with the infantry placement limits that should exist! You could call it a coincidence, but the military importance/population of a city is fairly related to the ability of that city to amass troops so it makes sense that the 2 values are the same. Why introduce a new set of numbers (IRCs) that are exactly the same values as anothrer set of numbers (VCPs)? Just have 1 set of numbers and call it something else that seems to better incorporate both ideas. I agree the term VCP doesn’t capture the infantry placement limits that well, let’s change it… I don’t care what we call it, I just want the simplicity of having 1 system that can be used for both infantry limits and to designate a point system to declare a victory.
If we only want to guarantee mass production, then I think B.Andersson’s “mass production” rule is indeed the best way to go for phase 1. ( It’s simple and effective!)
But like the duke says, this has nothing to do with historical reasons. But then again don’t the nation specific unit advantages cover that? New total Mass production rules should then be for a later phase, I think.
Russia should have advantages in ART and Armor, and US in everything… Germany should be able to focus more on quality then quantity.
If we only want to guarantee mass production, then I think B.Andersson’s “mass production” rule is indeed the best way to go for phase 1. ( It’s simple and effective!)
Anderssons’s rules actually create an unrealistic effect, which is why I decided not to go with that idea before. The unrealistic effect is ‘clumping’.
Realistically, nations build unit types rather gradually, at fairly consistent levels every year. Let’s go with the example of fighters…. to model real building, nations should buy 1 fighter (occatioanally 2) every turn because that’s the cheapest way to output a lage number of fighters. But with Andersson’s rules you should never do that. You should try to buy all your fighters you are going to need in 1 turn, that way you buy as many cheap fighters as you can… this is the clumping effect. On the next turn, try to build as many armor units as you can, and so on. Keep clumping your purchases to minimize the number of fully-priced units you are paying for.
A realistic discounting method would be instead of paying 10 for a fighter, pay 8 every turn for a fighter but you have to spend the 8 for a fighter on every turn and if you ever don’t spend the 8 on a fighter in a turn, then you can’t buy fighter’s at that reduced price anymore for the rest of the game. Â
Good greif! there are like 1,000 new posts! wtf! LOL…
Anyway… i am not sure about this quantity discount thing… What i really like instead it dukes idea about 1 land, 2 air, 3 by sea “replacements” idea. Its really fixing many things about the game… One small problem is the allies basically get 6 IP more than the axis. This idea may be better with italy>?
imp, i don’t know if you saw my post about italy and the free ipc thing.
to repeat, basically, instead of italy counting double (worth 12 total) or something, italy gets the 1 land, 2 air, 3 sea thing as well as germany. 1st land unit in germany costs 2 less as well as 1 st land unit in s. europe. ditto for air and sea. ditto for infantry costing 2 in s. europe.
i don’t know if i want a 1,2,3 discount idea or a 2,2,2 yet. opinions? either way it’s 6 free ipcs for each nation.
let’s count up total ipc bonuses i proposed:
4 for russia (no SZ available for naval discount) + 5 for the -1 on 5 inf = 9 ipc bonus
6 for germany+6 for s. europe+5 for -1 on german inf+3 for -1 on italian inf= 20 ipc bonus
6 for uk + 3 for 01 on inf = 9 ipc bonus
6 for japan + 5 for -1 on inf = 11 ipc bonus
6 for e. us+ 6 for w. us (both above 8 ipc worth) + 3 for inf in e. us = 15 ipc bonus
ading up each side…… allies = 33 free ipcs; axis = 31 free ipcs
pretty darn fair… actually favors axis since most of the allied free ipcs is for US, not either of the other nations who actually need it.
since the Soviets are kinda under a hardship… perhaps the rule should be 3/3 for them leaving out navy? also allowing Germany to do the same to balance out?
BTW what do you think about those cheaper units based on nation?
Soviets are not in that much of a hardship since not all those free german ipcs can be used effectively on russia. either 6 or 4 of those free german ipcs have to be used on naval units. naval units don’t really help that much against russia. we’ll have to playtest it, but i think the distribution of free ipcs should make the game fairly balanced.
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.
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.
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.
