INF only ICs for AA50

@Bigwatcher Any updates so far?

Ya. AA50. Ok. Then never mind.

Reduce the IPC value of Timguska from 1IPC to 0 and increase the value of Yakuts to 2IPC, allow the Soviets 12IPCs for free on the turn Japan attacks.(like the old rule). This is a better balance as it is still up to the individual player as to what they want to do, but you would hope any player with common sense would use the 12IPCs to build a minor IC in yakuts

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

Thanks.  Will try next game!

5. Atomic Bomb  rolleyes Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

The war would have gone on till 1946. The two bombs dropped changed that. japan figured it could get a negotiated peace if it soiled the beaches of Japan with American blood. The bombs changed that completely. It was also dropped to get political advantage over the Soviets who wanted spoils in Asia and to deny them the same. The bomb was the most important invention of the war and it above all other techs must be represented. Obviously, it would be had to obtain and require alot of research to have. The idea is also to have one tech that changes the game and makes it end. Some games require such an outcome because players sometimes never surrender and Atomic weaponry will finish the stalemate.

And that is exactly what it did.

In some games you can play and not obtain an outcome, while with this technology you are assured that the game will finish up soon. In most games that last of normal duration it wont be developed and thats the charm of it.

@oztea:

Interesting Idea fighter commander, a re-worked tech system with a 3rd and 4th chart, only open to the axis or the allies respectively.

Ive been dabiling with a tech system that locks each country onto a tech tree. It doesnt have to roll for resarch, it just has to pay an R&D fee, as much as it wants each turn, to consistently recive tech.

For example, Germany: for each  3 IPCs germany devoted to R&D, place a tech counter on germany

2 tech counters - Advanced artillery, to represent 88’s
4 tech counters - Rockets, the V2
7 tech counters - Jet Fighers, the Me-109
and so forth

I havent fleshed it out yet, or even gotten anywhere near doing all the other nations.

mmmm personally I think that Wpns Development the general type of breakthru should be elective but the timing of the breakthru should be largely random rather than budgeted

but that’s me… :-D 
And I will confess: I also don’t like NAs unless there’s a reason beyond a strict replay of WW2 (e.g., no Japanese rockets or Russian marines etc.)

@Argothair Funny thing is, this is a example of an idea coming along early - Oztea’s Garrisons are mostly the same thing as A&A&Z’s Recruitment Centers. Main differences being that Garrisons can make more than just infantry and when Recruitment Centers make infantry, they do it at normal price. Of course, the fact that this thread is 10 years old may mean that it’s just you and me in here for now.

-Midnight_Reaper