• Hi,

    For those looking for a new optional rule to spice up game play. Consider if you will:

    • Players start the game with no money.
    • A player collects their income based on the IPC chart at the START of their turn, and not at the end.

    This change has some interesting effects on the game
    1. A player has to hold a captured territory for a complete turn before it generates any income. I think that’s more realistic. Its hard to manufacture tanks and planes in an active warzone.
    2. The overall economy of the game is slightly reduced, so the game will move a little slower.
    3. It elminates lame land grabs for quick income, because you have to hold the land for a turn, so you better mean it when you attack.
    4. On the otherhand, you can clearly impact your opponent’s income by capturing poorly defended land even if you know you can’t hold it.

    Enjoy!


  • I like this idea a lot. I’ve always been bothered by the accounting nightmare created by collecting ipc’s at the end of the turn. The old system creates situations where a territory’s production can be counted multiple times. Let’s take the Russian territory as an example (this is purely hypothetical and used to illustrate a point, I’ve never seen a game unfold this way in real life):

    Russia collects 8 ipc’s at the end of their turn for owning Russia (I think Russia is worth 8, no matter, let’s use 8 ). Germany takes Russia, collecting an extra 8 ipc’s (and raiding the Russian treasury for the 8 ipc’s issued earlier). Then, British forces stationed in Karelia retake Russia. Then, the Japanese take Russia from the east, earning them 8 ipc’s at the end of their turn.

    Russia’s production for that round was not 8, but effectively 24. Russia’s production capacity has been overstated 3 fold, and during a period of extreme turmoil in that territory.

    With the new system, Russia would only be counted once - for the Russians. That money would then go to the Germans for capturing the capital and raiding the treasury. IF the Americans were in a position to take Russia back from Japan, then the Russians would again get 8 ipc’s at the start of the next round. If not, Japan would have the right to the 8 ipc’s if they still held on to it. It is possible that Russia would produce nothing in the next round - but that would be ok by me - I wouldn’t expect them to be able to produce much when so much fighting was going on. Imagine that Britain is able to retake Russia before Japan’s next turn, Japan gets nothing for their effort.

    The more I think of it, the more I like this system. Has anyone play tested it?

    Monk Of Doom

    [ This Message was edited by: Monk of Doom on 2002-05-16 08:57 ]


  • There are 2 ways I see the game changing if this rule is changed:

    #1: You can basically throw out your strategic bombing raids (both sides affected equally).

    #2: Collecting on recently exchanged territories could potentially hurt the Axis more than the Allies.

    In the European theatre, Ukraine tends to be a trading territory for a good part of the game. If both sides continue to trade, neither will realize the 3 IPC’s. This is a slight advantage to the Allies as it would be one less German and corresponding UK/US/Rus INF (the Allies are always better off on a 1 for 1 trade with the Germans).

    In the Asian theatre, a lot of the mid-game combat takes place between ENO, Nov, and Kaz. It is not uncommon for all three territories to switch hands between sides whereas both Japan and Russian collect the 6 IPC’s. However, with the collection occurring on the begging of the turn, it is very possible to position the US to retake those territories (or at least 2 of them) for the Russians. Under this scenario, only Russia would be able to collect the IPC’s and Japan would just be trading units. This could potentially mean 1-3 more Russian INF each turn than the Axis could not match for controlling the same territories.

    In summary, collecting income at the beginning of the turn favors the alliance that can best work together (i.e. an alliance country liberating your territory before your turn so you can collect). Since in the majority of the game, only the Allies can work together, the Axis would have just one more disadvantage.


  • #1: You can basically throw out your strategic bombing raids (both sides affected equally).

    Not necessarily - you could devise a system where the results of bombing raids were recorded and then applied to the enemy when they collect their cash at the beginning of their turn. Say GB hit Germany for 3 - then at the beginning of Germany’s turn, they tally up their territory minus 3 and collect that amount. This would probably require strict recordkeeping to avoid disputes, but it is do-able.

    #2: Collecting on recently exchanged territories could potentially hurt the Axis more than the Allies.

    This is a very good point. I could see the new rule really hurting the Axis. The key to Axis success is taking territory and earning that extra cash. In a system that is already stacked against the Axis (IMO), I agree that this would be just one more nail in the coffin. BUT, I still like the ELIMINATION of the “infinate production capability” problem offered by the new system.

    It seems that the back-to-back US/USSR turns really throws a kink in the new system and introduces extra “gamey-ness”. This could be eliminated if US and USSR collected money at the same time - the beginning of the US turn. This will require a US/USSR partnership to think more long term. I think the system would cause everyone to think a little more long term.

    I still agree that the harm to Germany could be unrepairable. Maybe upping the base value of the core European and North African territories would help. Why aren’t Egypt and Syria, with there oil production capabilities, worth 3 or even more?

    [ This Message was edited by: Monk of Doom on 2002-05-16 11:16 ]


  • Zero, have you tried this way before?


  • Just what we need - a rule that makes A&A move a little slower! 😉

    I like the idea, all though it does change the entire game… I’ll try to talk one of my friends into it.


  • I don’t think this is a good idea. If you don’t start out with any money, it doesn’t ADD realism, it takes it away. I mean, every country starts out with a certain amount of money in their treasury, so to speak.

    Another idea I didn’t like, was having to hold a territory for an entire turn. This would make the game impossible, for the first country or two to move. They wouldn’t be able to hold onto every country they rightfully fought for. And as for is being more realistic, so a country is only counted once. I would like to make a comparrison, to, oh say, gold mining field/land. Let’s say you’re the first to arrive (you start out with the country.) So you get all this gold, and you send it home to your family. (The IPCs you start out with.) After year you still are the only people there. (A full round.) Then, when you least expect it, some other people come in and fight you for the land, you die. But your family still has the gold that you sent them. So now, this new miner (country) is on the land, and they start mining, and they start getting the gold and sends it home (home country), then they die cuz someone came, and they start getting it… etc, etc. The country could almost be looked as a resource, that never stops putting out.

    I personally think that the economics of the game may seem a little strange from a game playing point of view, but if you look at it realistically, if you look at it closely, it’s very accurate.


  • I always like to try out new strategies, and this one shows promise to it. However what many others have mentioned, and what I have to agree upon, your new system does help the Allies a bit too much. And of course the Allies already have the winning edge as it is. This system does promote turtling, meaning if I can’t take and hold, what’s the point of invading if I’m just going to trade units? Also the USA and Russia move could really end up damaging the Axis, striping them of much need IPCs.

    You said that by forcing a player has to hold a captured territory for a complete turn, it’s more realistic. It’s hard to manufacture tanks and planes in an active warzone. Now you might be right about this. But what constitutes an active warzone? The problem is, that we don’t really know how long one round is or how long one turn is. What if each turn is in reality one year? What if I am able to take Ukraine with Germany and hold it until Russia’s turn? Theoretically, that would mean I held Ukraine for over a year. Do I generate nothing from that capture?


  • On 2002-05-16 23:30, TG Moses VI wrote:
    What if I am able to take Ukraine with Germany and hold it until Russia’s turn? Theoretically, that would mean I held Ukraine for over a year. Do I generate nothing from that capture?

    Yes, you would generate nothing. Of course Russia would generate nothing for recapturing Ukraine…unless they still owned it at the beginning of their next turn.

    Taking Ukraine may not have earned you any ipc’s, but it did prevent Russia from earning ipc’s. In a game using this rule, you would trade territories not for a quick buck, but to prevent your enemy from earning that cash.

    On 2002-05-16 21:30, BubbleyMoose wrote:
    If you don’t start out with any money, it doesn’t ADD realism, it takes it away. I mean, every country starts out with a certain amount of money in their treasury, so to speak.

    Remember this point, you get your cash at the beginning of your turn. You then turn around and spend it. Russia would get 24 ipc’s and then buy 8 men, or whatever. Let’s say they attack and take Manchuria and Eastern Europe. They won’t get any money for those battles unless they hold the territories at the beginning of their next turn.

    Now it’s Germany’s turn - they get 29 ipc’s (32 minus 3 for not owning EE). They attack a central African territory, Egypt and Syria - total value = 4. They will get 33 next turn if they hold onto them.

    UK turn - they collect 26 ipc’s (30 minus 4 lost in Africa). They attack and retake Egypt.

    Japan turn - they collect 22 (25 minus 3 for Manchuria). They retake Manchuria, and then take China and India - they will earn 30 if they hold.

    US - collect 34 (36 minus 2 for China) and build stuff - no attacks

    So on…

    Total IPC’s on the board = 147 (think of this as the world’s collective production capacity).

    Total amount utilized during this first round of conflict = 135. This makes sense to me - this ain’t the roaring 20’s, its war. Compare this to 155 - the amount that would have been issued under the standard rules. If the world’s total production capacity is 147, how can 155 ipc’s be issued?

    As you can see, almost everyone starts out at a lower ipc level than with the standard rules, except Russia. Maybe this rule would work better in a Russia Restricted game. Of course, you could still bid for Axis, but I have no idea what a reasonable bid would be until someone play tests it.


  • ^ Oops, forgot to log on above
    |
    |


  • Hi,

    Glad to see all the discussion on this topic. Some points:

    1. As pointed out by others, SBR requires some bookkeeping to remember how much damage was done, and then subtract that amount from the money earned by the country at the start of their turn.

    2. My group of players have been discussing this rule, but we haven’t been able to try it yet. I have been working too many hours lately. Hopefully we’ll get to try it during the next month or so.

    3. I’m not sure that I agree with the analysis that this will hurt the Axis more than the allies. Russia gets the jump on Germany, but after that I think this rule favors the Axis. I say this because in the early game the Axis is on the offensive capturing territories. Every captured territory is reduced income for the Allies, and if the axis holds it for one turn, increased income for the axis. This system favors which ever side is taking and holding new territory, which is the primary goal of the Axis in the early game.

    4. This rule does not favor turtleing. I think it promotes “smart” aggressive behavior. A victory denies the previous owner of income, and holding it for a turn yields income for the aggressor.


    Zero

    [ This Message was edited by: Zero on 2002-05-17 08:03 ]


  • Wow, Germany only earns 33 IPCs on G2. I just hope this low IPC count doesn’t deduct from standard unit purchases. And I hope there’s still enough money to buy “spoiler” ATB units instead of just focusing on Inf due to low IPC count.

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 2
  • 20
  • 8
  • 28
  • 3
  • 4
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts