Contested Territory - What do you think of this change ?

@Arreghas I really love this idea!
One of the biggest problems I find in my games is stacking. Its not as fun when the game just comes down to two giant stacks on the western front, and the CPs can never win because they can never get enough guys there. However, I think this house rule combined with Economic and Political Collapse could fix that problem and give the game more of a trench warfare feel. Thank you for sharing and keep up the good work!

That’s one of the problems with games is everybody banks there planes. My own game at least has it where u can lose planes in naval and ground when u don’t want to. If there’s a bonus plane kill u have to take one as a casualty

No problem, perhaps the thread was moved, because it was viewed more than a 100 times but not answered yet by anyone.

It was a little bit strange to me when I had a look at the original forum this morning. At first sight I thought, the thread was deleted - with no comment. Well, weird, but finally I found the post here. Thank you for your answer!

First of all, we never changed the setup from the OOB setup.  All we changed were the land movement rules to allow two moves into a friendly or already contested space as the second space, and the extended 3-move sea movement from friendly sea bases.  And we added in the economic and political collapse rules.

What that led to was a series of games where one side would engage in cheap moves, like dropping one Italian guy in Smyrna to help push the Ottomans into collapse.  It was making the game stupid so we altered the rules to have the effects of political collapse kick in at the end of the turn, and if out of economic collapse the country could collect money.  This in turn unbalanced the game the other way, by creating situations where Germany was in economic collapse at the beginning of every turn but out at the end of every turn, and so it kept collecting money and had something like 110 IPCs when it got lucky and started its turn able to buy about 3 rounds later.

It also led to situations where countries were in political collapse for three or four turns and then managed to turn things around by getting out before the end of that country’s turn each round of game play.

As a result, we think we hit on the right balance: (1) at the beginning of a country’s turn, before purchasing, it must check for collapse.  If it is in economic collapse, it loses all its money.  If it is also in political collapse, it may only conduct moves that are into spaces that would allow it to stop that collapse in addition to losing all its money.  Then check again at the end of the turn.  If it is still in political collapse, it is out of the game.  If it is still in economic collapse, it collects no money.  If it is out of both, it collects money.  (2) In the event that a country starts its own turn in political collapse twice in a row, it immediately, at the beginning of its turn, is out of the game.

These changes to the rules, based on our playtesting, seem to fix the crazy/“cheap” moves and balance the game better.

Here are my house rule suggestions for economic balance in Global…. it’s not much, but that’s the point.

#1. The $5 Russian National Objective for no axis ships in the Norwegian convoy zone #125, control of Archangel, and no allied units on originally owned Russian territories has now been modified and split into 2 different National Objectives for Russia.

Lend Lease

$5 National Objective for no Axis ships in the Norwegian convoy zone #125, and for control of Archangel.

National Prestige

$5 National Objective for at least 1 Russian warship on the board, and no Allied units on any originally owned Russian territories

#2. Two significant National Objectives that were dropped after Alpha +3 have now been reinstated.

Merchant Shipping Protected
#1. 5 IPCs for the United Kingdom if the Atlantic is free of German submarines.

Germany controls London
#2. 5 IPCs for Germany if they control London.

#3. When the United States declare war, they are automatically given the War Bonds technology for free.

Is this giving to much to the Allies?

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914

Opps sorry Missed that one this “morning” your right even having the map right beside me then and thinking it, ya well have a spring 44 scenario without the need for Operation Bagration :-P Belerus should’ve been in that list too. Thanks :-)

SS

I agree with Der Kuenstler…
But I have an other idea.
All ground units are vulnerable against fighters so infantry,artillery and tanks return fire at 1 againts fighters.