Income Collecting Rule



  • Say Russia holds a German territory at the beginning of a turn, and then Germany take back the territory, and then U.K. take that again. In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability. It is anti-intuitive for an area being frequently hand-changed during war.



  • Remember this is a war-simulation game.  Portions of the game are not historically accurate but are played in the best fashion for game play.

    Multiple income collection by territory as you describe encourages attacking.  This is similiar to the military goals in WWII.  If you want to hunker down and hold territory, perhaps a WWI game is more to your style.



  • 😮
    What? this is just a game!
    You should be flogged for even thinking such a thing  :x
    I think I’ll have to give you a negative Karma point for not sugar coating this reality, blaah  😛

    lolololololololololo


  • 2007 AAR League

    @middleware:

    In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.

    Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:

    World War III!!!

    Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!!  😄 :mrgreen:

    (Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw  :-P….)



  • Didn’t the historical rule set take care of that?  I think it’s called AAHE.

    They pay out to every space after the US player finishes.  I don’t know as that way is any better.  Russia gets screwed by Germany who is screwed by the UK who is screwed by Japan who inturn is ultimately screwed by the US.

    I don’t know as that could ever be fixed.  However, there is supposed to be a significant time laps between one player’s turn in the next.  The IPC’s were “minted” on September 1, 1941.  Japan’s first turn takes place on December 7, 1941 several months later.

    So hypothetically if the industrial base of a territory produces 1 widget every month all 5 powers could collect it and not disrupt the A&A space time continuum.

    LT



  • @LT04:

    Didn’t the historical rule set take care of that?  I think it’s called AAHE.

    They pay out to every space after the US player finishes.  I don’t know as that way is any better.  Russia gets screwed by Germany who is screwed by the UK who is screwed by Japan who inturn is ultimately screwed by the US.

    I don’t know as that could ever be fixed.  However, there is supposed to be a significant time laps between one player’s turn in the next.  The IPC’s were “minted” on September 1, 1941.  Japan’s first turn takes place on December 7, 1941 several months later.

    So hypothetically if the industrial base of a territory produces 1 widget every month all 5 powers could collect it and not disrupt the A&A space time continuum.

    LT

    Yeah, I think that each round (Russia - US) is supposed to represent one year of the war - not that it’s very realistic either.
    Thanks.



  • Collect your income after purchasing units.  “Problem” solved (I don’t see it a problem).



  • The problem is historical accuracy mixed with gameplay, they have to gel nicely together 🙂

    As for everyone collecting IPCs well I think that is the worst premise to attack the game on from a historical stand point. After World War II Stalin stripped Germany of its infrastructure, literally dismantling its factories and reassembling them in Russia. The german expansion involved ransacking conquered treasuries. The germans and russians both used forced slave labour.

    Moving on, Axis and Allies Revised is not a repeat of World War II, its you playing out what world war II could have been like after 1942 Spring. Therefore you create the alternate future, and in doing so it is quite possible a territory is taken over by different countries in the same round, and they all derive income from it. How is this so? Well you could assume for instance that the Russians take all the infrastructure, Germany takes away some of the inhabitants to work in German factories in Germany, Britain ransacks the treasury. Just imagine that when they do it they all suck the territory dry of money any way they can!

    Also to attack the game on the IPC premise is a low blow! Japan has 30 ipcs and America has 40 ipcs do you really think in the war Japan had three quarters of the industrial output of America? Try one tenth! Therefore clearly the ipcs is the part of the game that has to delineate itself from historical accuracy in order to facilitate an even game play.

    I am with Crazy Ivan, if your not sugar coating our reality, then don’t say anything at all! Haha



  • IPCs can be also thought as collecting the spoils of war, something that happened quite often on WW2. Defeat the enemies forces and afterwards you’d capture/recover intact and damaged enemy equipment, not to mention food, ammo, oil, etc.



  • @Hobbes:

    IPCs can be also thought as collecting the spoils of war, something that happened quite often on WW2. Defeat the enemies forces and afterwards you’d capture/recover intact and damaged enemy equipment, not to mention food, ammo, oil, etc.

    I like that one.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Our house rule, at least the past two or three months, has been that everyone collects income after America’s turn.  Seemed logical to put it there since that is also when you check Victory Cities held by each side to determine who wins if anyone.

    Any advantages that the allies might get by America going last are usually curtailed by Russia going first (and thus getting the least amount of income possible).



  • @Perry:

    @middleware:

    In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.

    Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:

    World War III!!!

    Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!!   😄 :mrgreen:

    (Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw  :-P….)

    That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
    (What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)



  • @shermantank:

    @Perry:

    @middleware:

    In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.

    Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:

    World War III!!!

    Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!!   😄 :mrgreen:

    (Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw  :-P….)

    That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
    (What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)

    Who would be the major players?

    US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea

    Plus you would have neutral states.  Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS.  Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.

    That would be awesome.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @LT04:

    @shermantank:

    @Perry:

    @middleware:

    In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.

    Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:

    World War III!!!

    Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!!  😄 :mrgreen:

    (Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw  :-P….)

    That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
    (What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)

    Who would be the major players?

    US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea

    Plus you would have neutral states.  Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS.  Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.

    That would be awesome.

    US, UK, Israel, E. European Block States (you know like Romania, etc) and Turkey against Canada, W. European Block States (like Germany, France, etc), China, Middle Eastern States (like Iran, Syria) and North Korea.  Just as a guideline I’d think.

    Some are questionable, of course.  Like would Iraq side with America or would Mexico side with America?  Also, would Germany side with England or with Russia?  Would Russia even play?  or would Russia sit it out in hopes of killing off the victors afterwards?



  • I think having three teams would make this WWIII scenario very interesting.



  • @Cmdr:

    @LT04:

    @shermantank:

    @Perry:

    @middleware:

    In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.

    Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:

    World War III!!!

    Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!!   😄 :mrgreen:

    (Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw  :-P….)

    That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
    (What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)

    Who would be the major players?

    US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea

    Plus you would have neutral states.  Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS.  Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.

    That would be awesome.

    US, UK, Israel, E. European Block States (you know like Romania, etc) and Turkey against Canada, W. European Block States (like Germany, France, etc), China, Middle Eastern States (like Iran, Syria) and North Korea.  Just as a guideline I’d think.

    Some are questionable, of course.  Like would Iraq side with America or would Mexico side with America?  Also, would Germany side with England or with Russia?  Would Russia even play?  or would Russia sit it out in hopes of killing off the victors afterwards?

    If we are going for realism, Russia would definitely be on whatever side China and Iran are.  Russia promised Iran that it would help defend against American or Israeli aggression, plus as Georgia shows, Russia has no problem pumping out military to fight.  China and Russia have friendly ties on the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” basis (America/israel being that enemy).  I think your team vs. team scenario is most realistic, adding Russia to China’s team.  Iraq would most likely be a coin toss… they could go either way depending on if the resistance to US is large enough.  Mexico would side with America.  No way would they dare oppose the US, unless they desire to be crushed  😉 Of course, it is more likely they would avoid war…



  • @Rakeman:

    @Cmdr:

    @LT04:

    @shermantank:

    @Perry:

    @middleware:

    In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.

    Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:

    World War III!!!

    Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!!   😄 :mrgreen:

    (Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw  :-P….)

    That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
    (What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)

    Who would be the major players?

    US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea

    Plus you would have neutral states.  Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS.  Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.

    That would be awesome.

    US, UK, Israel, E. European Block States (you know like Romania, etc) and Turkey against Canada, W. European Block States (like Germany, France, etc), China, Middle Eastern States (like Iran, Syria) and North Korea.  Just as a guideline I’d think.

    Some are questionable, of course.  Like would Iraq side with America or would Mexico side with America?  Also, would Germany side with England or with Russia?  Would Russia even play?  or would Russia sit it out in hopes of killing off the victors afterwards?

    If we are going for realism, Russia would definitely be on whatever side China and Iran are.  Russia promised Iran that it would help defend against American or Israeli aggression, plus as Georgia shows, Russia has no problem pumping out military to fight.  China and Russia have friendly ties on the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” basis (America/israel being that enemy).  I think your team vs. team scenario is most realistic, adding Russia to China’s team.  Iraq would most likely be a coin toss… they could go either way depending on if the resistance to US is large enough.  Mexico would side with America.  No way would they dare oppose the US, unless they desire to be crushed  😉 Of course, it is more likely they would avoid war…

    @shermantank:

    Where would the UN fit in all of this?

    Where would the UN fit into all of this? (Not like I care about the UN…)



  • @shermantank:

    Where would the UN fit into all of this? (Not like I care about the UN…)

    They could send some peacekeeping forces to stop the violence.  Attack 0, Defense 0, movement 5.  They can be deployed virtually anywhere, but wont particularly do anything useful.  😛



  • Good point Rakeman!

    Make it so that where ever a UN peace keeper is, in order to emphasise diplomatic negotiations, the attacking player can reconsider his attack after having rolled his dice, haha.



  • Defenders could use UN forces present in the area to ‘absorb’ a hit. 😄


  • Official Q&A

    I believe this game exists.  It’s called East & West.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

87
Online

14.2k
Users

34.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts