Has anyone tried +1 to the IPC value of the territory when you build a new IC?

My friends and I are trying out some new ideas, and our most recent one is for when you build a new IC.  When you do, the IPC value of the territory goes up by +1, so that means that if you place a US IC on Sinkang, then the US’s IPC value increases from 42 to 43 (assuming that you haven’t lost any territory yet) and the new IC may produce up to 3 units because Sinkang is now considered to be a 3 IPC territory.  This seems to balance out the somewhat high cost (15 IPC) of building an IC, and it gives you some new options, because now you could place an IC on any 1 IPC valued territory and now produce up to 2 units.  The extra IPC boost doesn’t hurt either when it comes to purchasing.  This house rule may to help the allies a little more than the axis, because a Sinkang IC producing 3 Tanks a turn paired with an India IC producing 4 units can probably knock Japan off of Asia if Japan is not careful. Also a South Africa IC producing 3 units should ensure that Africa never falls.  Is this a good/bad house rule?  Tell me what you think.

I had another thought which may be parallel to yours, Tekky.  What if ICs only cost 5IPC, but could only build units equal to 1/3 of the IPC value of the territory (rounded to the nearest whole number, but always with a minimum of 1 even on Greenland or other non-IPC producing territories).  By paying for and placing a white chip under the IC, each IC could be upgraded a max of 5 times (a red chip) with each increase adding another 1/3 production ability, so, the production ability would be as follows:

Cost  # of ICs on territory  Example -India (3IPC)                          increase in the territory’s IPC value
5        1                          1/3 of 3 = could build up to 1 unit/turn    +0
10      2                          2/3 of 3 = could build up to 2 units/turn  +0
15      3                          3/3 of 3 = could build up to 3 units/turn  +0
20      4                          4/3 of 3 = could build up to 4 units/turn  +1
25      5                          5/3 of 3 = could build up to 5 units/turn  +2
30      6                          6/3 of 3 = could build up to 6 units/turn  +3 (the maximum increase)

Of course, the original setup ICs should probably start at level 3 (an IC with 2 wite chips underneath), but it would be neat to be able to increase Caucus an additional 3 by spending 15 IPCs, so that Caucus would be worth 8 IPCs/turn and able to produce up to 8 units/turn.

If this would be too powerful (one can only imagine every country upgrading their capital’s ICs, then perhaps the following would be more reasonable.

Cost  # of ICs on territory  Example -India (3IPC)                          increase in the territory’s IPC value
5        1                          1/3 of 3 = could build up to 1 unit/turn              +0
10      2                          2/3 of 3 = could build up to 2 units/turn              +0
15      3                          3/3 of 3 = could build up to 3 units/turn              +0
20      4                          1 & 1/4 of 3 = could build up to 3.75=4 units/turn +0
25      5                          1 & 1/2 of 3 = could build up to 4.5=5 units/turn  +0
30      6                          1 & 1/2 of 3 = could build up to 4.5=5 units/turn  +1 (the maximum increase)

I realize that this does increase the complexity of the game, but adding a slight economic diminsion to the game could be interesting.  Another thought would be that the Axis setup ICs start at level 3, but the Allies setup ICs start at levels 1-2. At least for America anyway.

Good/Bad?  Tell me what you think.

P.S.  In the current game, we tried the +1 IPC value to all new ICs, and it is definantly helping the Allies somewhat (with UK having 1 in S. Africa and 1 in India and US having 1 in Sinkang) by keeping Japan tied down and UKs being able to hold Africa quite handily.  Although Russia is having quite a time of it trying to hold off the Germans.