IPC Cost Reduction

@Imperious-Leader
Hi IL,
I can see that some TTy in Siberia did not worth a real boost in economy.

Your suggestion made me think about a way to expand my first idea a little bit more, even if it is not truly accurate/realistic from a geo-economic POV.

When invading a Zero IPC island TTy with an amphibious assault, if winning get 2 IPCs.
If defending side won the battle, he get 1 IPC.

If it is a Zero IPC continental TTy, the invader gain 1 IPC.

It remains a bonus given through the result of a combat. No additional economic value to keep such islands on subsequent rounds.

That way, it is an incentive to fight over these TTys nonetheless.

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

@vodot said in [AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion:

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

SIR, THIS IS PURE GOLD! :)

The on going discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864
on Transport with defense roll makes me wonder about actual combat strength of Classic Transport and an escorted TP:

Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C15, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/15^2) = 0.32

Transport and Cruiser A3 D3 C19, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/19^2) = 0.30

Classic Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
Defense factor:
36*(1/8^2) = 0.5625

I revised the opening post.
As comparison points, a Fighter A3 D4 C10 off/def is 1.08 / 1.44

Destroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/8^2) = 1.125

Submarine A2 D1 C6
Offense:
36*(2/6^2) = 2.00
36*(3/6^2) = surprise strike 3.00
Defense:
36*(1/6^2) = 1.00
36*(1.33/6^2) = surprise strike 1.33

You need to send 2 Destroyers to get a similar defense value with Classic Transport strength 0.5625:
Transport and 2 Destroyers A4 D4 C23, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/11.5^2) = 0.544

Or make defenseless Transport a 4 IPCs unit:
Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C12, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/12^2) = 0.50

Now, if you want to introduce a Classic TP with the same strength of actual DD+TP combo 0.32:
You need to make TP cost 10,5 IPCs:
Classic Transport A0 D1 C10, 1 hit
Defense factor:
36*(1/10^2) = 0.36

At 11 IPCs, it would be 0.30 though.

Transport defending A0 D1 would be interesting at a clean 10 IPCs.

Seems like a legit point, my thought was that it would put a little more pressure on the German opening, making the standard sz14 opening a bit more risky (if G elects to ignore the canal then UK can make a play for the med, if they go for it, that leaves Gibraltar open.) If Allies don’t want to trade the middle east, then Russia can defend Trans with the tank and 1 fighter (that can still attack W. Russia and make the landing). But to do that and secure Trans then the Soviets have to be involved. This would produce a 50/50 on the G1 attack, but it also means sacrificing a transport, or else risking the loss of the Battleship to a UK airstrike. So there is a definite risk there for both sides.

But somewhere in Sub Sahara Africa would work too. I think if doing that then Rhodesia would probably be the most fun, since it gives a spawn point in sz 33 and a target for G or J to gun for.

I think I will edit to Rhodesia, just to keep things straight forward. This would also be cool for a fighter spawn in sz 33, if UK wants to keep their carrier instead of sending it into an attack. Or as a tank slot, for a sz33 transport or to race up to Egypt in 1 move. If Axis take Rhodesia then it’s a bit easier for them to hold the southern section of Africa. It might also make a factory expansion in SA more attractive for either side, since they’d already have 1 production slot in place (similar to the way Finland makes an IC in Norway a bit more attractive.

Good call man I dig it, Rhodesia it will be. Edited above :)

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

What if you had convoy routes mapped out and any enemy ship in any sea zone on the route, would lower owners income by 3 icps instead of having a value for each sea zone. That way if Germany had 3 subs in convoy route it would only lower owner 3 icps. That way you wouldn’t need a bunch of ships defending all the sea zones.

@knp7765:

What game are you talking about? Is it A&A 1941?

If so, then you are right. There is a lot less IPC value yet the units cost the same with the exceptions of carriers and battleships. WOTC designed it this way to help make the game simpler and have a shorter playing time to hopefully get new people into playing Axis and Allies. Since everyone has less money to spend, the Purchase phase goes quicker. With less units on the board, it’s much easier to keep track of what and who’s units are where. Also, it makes the Combat phase go quicker because there are less units in each combat. So, to keep this game short and simple, the unit costs should be left as they are.
You should get this game. It really is fun and a nice change from the bigger, more complex games. Personally, I would get at least 2 copies: one for playing and the second for extra pieces. You only get 2 destroyers per nation and you usually need more, especially for UK battling those pesky German U-boats. Either that, or go to HBG and see if you can get whatever pieces you want individually.

Yeah I was referring to 41’ it got moved to House Rules.