So, as for justifying different costs for infantry units, I’m not sure if inf were ‘cheaper’ in capitals, but I feel there should be some added incentive to building them there. Now Russia has to think, do I need inf placed in Caucasus so fast that i spend 3 on them, or can i save money buy placing them in Russia and moving them over next turn. all of a sudden there’s a new strategy to the game.

the limits of 5 inf placed per capital (except 3 for US and UK) effectively gives each nation 5 (or 3) cheap infantry. because any infantry purchased over this limit costs more than if they are purchased on a latter turn, the nation has another difficult decision of paying 3 for every inf over the max at the capital VC or waiting to pay only 2 each next turn. with Russia, japan and germany almost always buying 5 infantry a turn (who wouldn’t take advantage of all the 2 IPC infantry you could buy???) and UK and US buying only 3 cheap inf a turn, I think UK and US will fall behind in number of inf produced (i.e. realistic effect produced).

imp gave me an interesting idea. instead of saying inf in VCs connected to the capital cost 3 and not connected costs 4, would it be more realistic to say inf costs 3 when placed in VC territory of your color and 4 in captured VC territories? the big difference would be that UK would only pay 3 per inf placed in their colonies and it would be cheaper for japan (3 each instead of 4 each) to place inf on mainland asia.

remember, we’d still have the inf placing limit of:

FOR Russia, Germany, Japan:

max number inf= number of VCPs for VCs contiguously connected to capital

max number inf= number of VCPs minus 1 for VCs not contiguously connected to capital

FOR UK and US:

max number inf= number of VCPs or 3, whichever is smaller.