Simple Modification of Industrial Complexes (AA50 and or Revised)
oztea last edited by Panther
First post here but….something simple ive been tinkering with.
A new unit, the “Garrison”.
Rules: A Garrison is 10 IPC’s. The Garrison follows most of the same rules as an industrial complex EXCEPT they may only produce Infantry, Artilery, Destroyers, Transports. Any units poduced at a Garrison cost +1 IPC more than their normal cost to reflect the cost of maintaining forces in far-flung locations. Garrisons do not recive the +2 units benifit from the Incresed Factory Production research, instead they produce units at normal prices with this research. A Garrison may be “upgraded” (takes effect on the next turn) to an Industrial complex for 10 IPCs IF a Victory City is also present in the territory. Once upgraded the Garrison becomes a factory in all respects. The Garrison unit is represented by one industrial complex piece. Industrial complexes are then represented by two industrial complex peices, placed side by side. Industrial complexes now cost 20 IPCs. An Industrial Complex can still be placed anywhere for its new incresed cost, and will replace any Garrisons present.
Adjustment to setup: The Industrial complex in Karelia (AA50) is reduced to a Garrison in both 41’ and 42’ setups. All others remain Industrial Complexes. The United Kingdom may place one Garrison in any territory it controls that contains a Victory City in 41’ and 42’, the Garrison is placed before the game begins. (I’m thinking of just limiting to East Canada, but its up to debate)
Rationale: In games ive played so far, the game breaks down in asia. Japan can get units where it needs them to be. And the Allies can not. Simply put, Japan just takes India, or Australia, and even egypt on occasions. It also builds an IC in either Manchuria, or India, and pumps out 3 Armored Divisons a turn…somehow this doesnt seem like the WWII ive learned about. To correct this im giving the allies a foot in the door in the pacific. The ability to produce low teir units at an incresed cost reflects the war in the pacific somewhat better. There were Austraian regements, Indian Regements, Canadian…etc. But this doesnt neccisarily represent raising them there, it can also represent “unseen transports” ferrying troops to the front in Egypt or other areas, hence the incresed cost. These naval units are always there, theoreticly in the background, and can be requisitoned by commanwealth commanders, reflected by purchasing them. Garrisons help other nations to reflect history as well, a French Garrison by the Germans, or Polish or Austro/Hungarian gets infantry to the Russian front a turn faster. An Italian Garrison in Egypt, if it conquers it. An American Garrison could represent a multitute of contexts, Free French, or other liberiated countries, perhaps even a Hawaiin or Alaskan Garrison. Lastly the Garrison rule serves also to curtail Japan, who in my games has a nasty habit of running the Mechanised Onslaught of Asia. With this rule Japan can put forces on the mainland that better represent the reality of the war. So no more Armored thrusts through the Soviet far East unless they want to invest heavily. Industrial complexes should be reserved for Industrialized Nations where an entire area has the capacity to pruduce tanks and bombers and battleships, and the game should reflect this more.
Upside-down_Turtle last edited by
Interesting idea, but no. I think it would require a new piece. Otherwise, how can you tell the difference?
It’s a reasonable suggestion. If anything, I think your garrisons would be somewhat over-priced. Suppose I buy a garrison for India as the British on turn 1, and then I want to build 3 infantry at the garrison on turns 2 and 3. That costs me $10 for the garrison, plus $24 for 6 infantry, for a total of $34. They would defend with 12 pips, attack with 6 pips, and be sitting in India on turn 3.
For a similar price, I could buy 3 fighters, send 'em through Moscow to India, and have them sitting in India on turn 3, with 12 pips of defense, 9 pips of offense, and some extra mobility. True, the planes have fewer hit points (3 HP vs. 6 HP for the infantry), but they cost a bit less, and have other advantages.
Upgrading the garrison to a factory seems like an even worse deal: I pay $10 up front, and then I have to build 10 units there just to recover my investment, which takes a minimum of 4 turns. I guess it’s nice to be able to build tanks or whatever, but you can almost always make do with infantry, artillery, transports, destroyers built on site, and planes flown in from your capital.
So this new piece is useful during your bid (I’d love to have a free garrison in India at the game’s start) but a bit of a trap for players who might want to purchase it – 90% of the time, you’d be better off just purchasing a factory outright, or buying planes and flying the planes over.
I’d suggest reducing the cost of building and/or upgrading a garrison to 6 IPCs. At that price, I think it would be a competitive option.
@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.